Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

From the 1 Feb 08 post at John Hilley's blog:
http://johnhilley.blogspot.com/

Demystifying the Palestinian issue

Resolving the Palestinian issue? It's as simple as one, two, three.

Well, relatively simple when we strip-away Israeli rhetoric and look clearly at the key legalities of the situation.

Israel cynically portrays the issues as being deeply complex, part of its long game of evading international criticism while trying to break the Palestinians. Alongside the perpetuated myths of 'Palestinian intransigence' that followed Oslo, Olmert and his predecessors have sought to foster the notion of fiendishly difficult peace details bogging-down negotiations, requiring some kind of Olympian effort on their part to resolve it.

Not so, according to the esteemed US academic Norman Finkelstein. In contrast to many of the seriously intractable conflicts around the world, potential resolution of this one, he believes, is strikingly straightforward. Indeed, it's remarkable "how uncomplicated it is".

In his recent lecture at LSE, Finkelstein stressed this central fact: that all the key legal arguments over Palestinian rights have already been adjudicated in their favour by the International Court of Justice, or World Court. These, of course, stand alongside the multiple UN resolutions clearly condemning Israel's Occupation and aggressions.

Finkelstein is particularly keen to emphasise the significance of the ICJ ruling (9 July 2004). And with good reason, when we look closely not just at the ruling, but in how it was interpreted. In its deliberations over the "separation" wall, the Court had to consider not just the wall itself, but the core legalities surrounding the case. On three central points, which coincide with the three main "final status" issues, it found Israel to be in gross violation of international accords, which view as illegal the appropriation of land through aggression. As Finkelstein outlines, Israel was deemed to have acted illegally with regard to the 1967 borders, the West Bank settlements and annexation of East Jerusalem.

The UN Charter holds clear that it is "inadmissable to acquire territory by war", rendering Israel's 1967 land seizure, including East Jerusalem, illegal. Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, likewise, renders all Israeli settlements contrary to international law. All these violations clearly informed the actual ruling on the wall.

Following judicial application of these three legal points, the court came down in favour of the Palestinians, declaring, 14-1, that the wall is unlawful and should be dismantled, with appropriate compensation paid to those whose land has been encroached upon. As Finkelstein reiterates: "There is no ambiguity whatsoever" about the rulings. "The highest judicial court in the world has resolved these issues."

The right of return for Palestinian refugees has also been made specific by UN declarations. However, Finkelstein also notes that while remaining a legitimate negotiating point, there is ample room for conciliation, involving compensation for those dispossessed, a point consistently intimated by the Palestinians themselves.

Thus, on all the crucial issues, there is clear evidence of a linear formula to resolve the conflict. So, when people say the Palestinian issue is complex, long-standing and intractable, it's worth remembering Finkelstein's assertion that once we demystify the politics, it's actually very straightforward.

If Israel complies with international law and standing judgments over borders, settlements and East Jerusalem, there will be an end of the Occupation. The Occupied Palestinian Territories - the official UN-designated title of this land - will become a viable state. In time, with a fair settlement of the refugee issue and appropriate efforts to rebuild the devastated Palestinian economy, people across this land could, with reasonable expectation, begin to live in peace.

Clear refusal

The relative simplicity of the outstanding issues here, however, highlights the zero-sum game Israel is playing in refusing to comply with international law, thus fostering ongoing conflict across the Middle East and beyond.

Israel, in short, is simply unwilling to give up what it has stolen. And neither, it seems, is Washington ready or willing to exert the necessary pressure on its favoured-client state to enforce a change of mind. Yet, while much of this can be attributed to the influential Israeli Lobby in the US, it doesn't follow that the US is simply beholden to Israel.

As Finkelstein argues (contra Mearsheimer and Walt), the Israeli Lobby may be powerful and share core goals with the neoconservatives - as in their common belligerent intentions towards Iran - but immediate US interests, rather than Israeli ones, will always have primacy in determining policy in the region. Any incoming US administration will, likewise, maintain support for Israel on that basis.

Yet, the terms of that support may be subject to change where the Occupation becomes an increasing liability for US interests, regional and domestic. In the latter regard, Finkelstein cites recent studies showing that support for Israel is diminishing among American Jews, the mainstay of its foreign political support. Identification with Israel among American Jews is waning, particularly within the younger demographic who don't share the same affinity as previous generations. Jews in the US are also, in general, liberal by inclination. And they're seeing more clearly, and with increasing embarrassment, the gross illegality and injustice taking place 'in their names'.

The situation is also unravelling from within the Israeli state. This week's report from the Winograd Commission, criticising Olmert's 'failed war' on Lebanon in 2006 (no mention, of course, of Israel's actual war crimes here), illustrates how the Israeli elite are now turning-in on themselves, seeking scapegoats and struggling to maintain the notion of Zionist invincibility.

Factor in Hamas's bravura blasting of the Egyptian-Gaza border defences, and we see a state increasingly struggling to comprehend and deal with its political and diplomatic weaknesses.

In sum, Israel's apartheid policies are approaching a state of hegemonic crisis. There's a growing awareness, domestic and foreign, of its oppressions and military limitations. And, as shown, it doesn't have a legal leg to stand on within the major international courts and assemblies. Beyond the confident posturing, these are all worrying concerns for the Israeli establishment.

In the final Q&A section of the lecture, Finkelstein takes-up the 'one-or-two-state' issue, arguing that the former only detracts from what is realistically achievable. He is also "agnostic" on the question of boycotting Israeli academia, supporting it in principle if shown to be having an impact, yet reticent about allowing Israel the space to shout about "academic freedom" rather than face the central issues.

Yet, beyond these tactical differences, the main issues and tasks remain clearly evident.

It's abundantly clear what has to be done by Israel to reach a just settlement. Its depressingly clear that it has no intention of pursuing one. Yet, it's reassuringly clear that, with all the key legal arguments on their side, the Palestinian case is gaining ground. It's also clear, for Finkelstein, that justice for the Palestinians must involve individual and collective mobilisation akin to the pressure brought to bear on apartheid South Africa.

As Finkelstein says, there's no need to mystify the conflict or complicate the practical actions needed to resolve it. "It's not rocket science". It's simple, really.

John

Yeah, heard Finkelstein speaking. He is absolutely right in my opinion. It is very simple. Question in my mind is, if Israel is willing to do this will it bring absolute peace? I still believe the majority of Israeli´s are willing to give up the occupied terrorities (inclusing east Jerusalem) if it guarantees lasting peace and stability.
Also, the one state solution does seem to get more publicity. At least more people are discussing it. Eventually this is how it will turn out I think, probably with a two state solution as a temporary solution. As long as Israel likes to see itself as a jewish state, it is inherently discriminatory.

I see that the Gazan's have decided to bring death and destruction upon themselves for attacking Israel and killing one civilian and two soldiers. The Palestinians are terrorising their neighbours and have only themselves to blame.

The Sec Gen of the UN is wrong to condemn the actions of the injured party (Israel):
"While recognising Israel's right to defend itself, I condemn the disproportionate and excessive use of force that has killed and injured so many civilians, including children," he said.

[/sarcasm]

Cheers,
Shafique

He Shafique, is that a reaction to my previous post in this thread? Or a reaction to my previous statements in other theads?
But to answer your question, yes Gazans brought the current situation upon themselves. While Israel retreated unilateral from Gaza, they got Qassams in return. I can understand Israel´s reluctance to retreat from other terrotities. Also Palestinians in the strip showed they cannot govern themselves in a civilised way, but as soon as the occupation stopped civil war started.
Hamas fires Qassams for the sole reason to kill as many civilians as possbile than the cowards hide among the Gazan population (including women and children). When Israel targets them, unfortunately people around the terrotists are also casualties. Not because Israel wants this, but because the cowards hide amongst them.
If the Gazan population would take the olive leaf and not elected Hamas, the strip would be in a much better state with peace and economic growth. And for those admiring Hamas, would want to live in any country rules by Hamas?

FD - no this wasn't a dig at you (I thought you were the one that advocated a non-violent protest on the part of Gazans, but I couldn't remember if it was you or someone else).

You are not alone in the views you express above that the Gazan's are reaping what they have sown.

I just am sad that collective punishment is tolerated and even justified. It's even sadder when a government official warns that Gaza could expect a holocaust in response to the killing of a civilian.

Cheers,
Shafique

Just to be clear, I am also against the collective punishment. About the peacefull protest, I think it was in the Gaza thread. Too bad only a couple of 100 showed up. It is the only weapon that Israel doesn´t have a response to and it would help the Palestinian cause much better than the Qassams. That´s just my personal opinion.

FD - thanks for the clarification. I think the collective punishment is both wrong and counter-productive - just like the Qassam attacks.

Both just seem to escalate an already dire situation.

The reports I read said about 5000 took place in the protest when they hoped for about 50,000. However it did make it to the news bulletins, but it got less coverage than the attacks on Israel and Gaza.

As the article above states, Israel should obey international law (for everyone's benefit)- and what Gazans do (or do not do) does not change this fact.

Cheers,
Shafique

just out of curiosity...


that strip of land, you call palestine, and says isreal on the world map...

according to what i know, and i maybe wrong, feel free to correct me... but im pretty sure this is accurate


isrealites lived in this land,
the romans took it over say about 100 BC
christ came, isrealites lived there, christ got crucified, under roman rule, through isrealites...

this area then turned christian
then the muslims entered it in 600 AD or so..

if you look up any ancient map of isreal (one is in the back of an arabic bible) - it labels palastine exactly where gaza is now, that tiny strip of land, and the rest of the land belonged to isrealites in different lots of tribes.


at which point, do muslims believe that this land in its entirety belongs to muslim palestinians - completely ignoring the fact that it actually belongs (and has always belonged since the the days of abraham the father of the isrealites) to the jews?

Ebonics - the Bible says that Moses and subsequent prophets fought the original dwellers of Palestine - so there were people living in the 'Promised Land' before the Jews.

The Bible records the Israelites coming to power and the period of rule over the land - roughly between after the death of Moses to the century before Jesus (and even in this period the rule is not continuous). Also recall that at the time Egypt ruled the area and there were many non-Israelite tribes in Palestine as well (according to the Bible).

Between the time of the Jewish kingdoms and the 7th-century Muslim conquests, the Land of Israel fell under Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Sassanian, and Byzantine rule.

Under Bablyonian rule the temple was destroyed and most of the Tribes were expelled from Palestine - most to the East.

Jewish presence in the region dwindled after the failure of the Bar Kokhba revolt against the Roman Empire in 132 CE and the resultant large-scale expulsion of Jews.

See my thread on the UN Debate in 1948 - Essential Reading - for information around the formation of Israel.

So, in summary - the tribes of Israel weren't the first people of the land, the people they fought at the time of Moses were there first.

Cheers,
Shafique

and who were the ppl that fought at the time of moses?

It's a sad, sad story that I hope one day will have a happy ending.

Chocoholic wrote:It's a sad, sad story that I hope one day will have a happy ending.

lol you make it sound like you are the one telling the story hehhe.

abrahams life was mentioned in genesis, then moses in exodus - we all agree abraham is the father of the jews, and abraham didnt live in egypt....


the isrealites in egypt werent born in egypt, so where did they come from?

ebonics wrote:abrahams life was mentioned in genesis, then moses in exodus - we all agree abraham is the father of the jews, and abraham didnt live in egypt....


the isrealites in egypt werent born in egypt, so where did they come from?

Abraham was born and raised in Ur, which is in modern day Iraq - and he took Ishmael and Hagra to Mecca.

Moses was brought up in the household of the Pharaoh and led the Israelites out of Egypt. Before him (at the time of Joseph) the Israelites chose to go to Egypt - and they weren't 'in charge' of the land at that time.

It was only after the Exodus and subsequent wars of conquest that the Israelites came to power. And they fought with the inhabitants of the land - among which were the 'Philistines' - i.e. the Palestinians.

This is all according to the Bible - I'm surprised you are unaware of these stories that are generally taught in Sunday School.

Coming from Egypt, I would have thought that the parts of the Biblical accounts set in Egypt would be well known to you.

Cheers,
Shafique

Interesting enough, there is no archealogical evidence of the precense of the Hebrews or Israelites in Egypt. Not saying that it didn´t happen, but many large groups of slaves left something something behind, not the Israelites. Our only reference is the OT and should we use that as a histrical book?
When reading through the different claims from the Jews and Pals, I always wonder when does a group of ppl. have the right to establish a state somewhere? Of course, there is no clear answer.
And especially after this weekend what happened in Gaza, I really donot care anymore. To quote Choc "it´s sad,sad, sad". So many innocent lives wasted for what? Just let them stop (both of them!). I know, it´s probably naive (where is Freza btw?), but that´s how I think at the moment.

You are right FD - that is why I referred to Biblical accounts. A lot of the archaeological investigations done in the area have been based on Biblical accounts - trying to find evidence of the places and peoples mentioned in the Bible.

I also read that the current thinking is that the pyramids etc weren't built by slaves but rather by ordinary Egyptians who would give their labour (or perhaps were forced?) but would ordinarily be farmers etc.

Also the numbers of Israelites on the Exodus has been called into question - with many saying that the numbers would be in the tens of thousands (at most), and not the multitudes described in the Bible (the argument goes you could not really have 2 million people wandering the wilderness for 40 years). [Not sure on the 2 mil, but you get my drift]

Anyway - the sad point is that people do use the Bible to justify Israel and even on that basis it is shaky.

The economist has an interesting write-up of the recent exchanges:
http://www.economist.com/world/africa/d ... d=10792645

For many (including me) it looks so unjust to give the Palestinians the majority of the blame when they are the ones suffering the most and are subject to illegal actions by Israel (as detailed in the opening post of this thread). It's like blaming the battered wife for scratching at the husband as he repeatedly sends her to hospital. The shame is that the other side of the argument is equally strongly held - that Palestinians are employing terrorist tactics and want to kill all Jews etc etc.

Cheers,
Shafique

ebonics wrote:if you look up any ancient map of isreal

A small anecdote comes to mind. It demystifyies the myth that Dutch people are great trades people and excellent bargainers.
A few years ago I was roaming the shouk in Jerusalem. My hobby is collecting old maps and I saw a map of Israel/Palestine with only the Arab city names in Arabic. So Tel Aviv was Jaffa etc. I wanted this interesting map and the guy asked 25 shekel. I tried to bargain, but he wouldn´t go down with his price. I left him and thought there will be other shops selling this map. Wrong. So, the end of the afternoon I went back to the guy and gave him his 25 shekels. He said he raised the price to 35 shekels in the meantime. So in the end I paid him 35 shekels.

shafique wrote:

ebonics wrote:abrahams life was mentioned in genesis, then moses in exodus - we all agree abraham is the father of the jews, and abraham didnt live in egypt....


the isrealites in egypt werent born in egypt, so where did they come from?

Abraham was born and raised in Ur, which is in modern day Iraq - and he took Ishmael and Hagra to Mecca.

yes, and isaac and sarah and his lived in that area, the entire area between iraq and now the gaza strip... the fact that he went with ishmael and hager to macca is as accurate as saying he took his son ishmael to the alter to sacrifice him, we believe it was isaac - a fundamental difference that brings us to where we are today.

the thousands of jews that got enslaved in egypt, had to come from somewhere.. they most definatly didnt originate from egypt nor were they egyptian jews. thus they dwelled in the area between iraq and gaza, where they went back and lived post moses leaving egypt.

shafique wrote:I also read that the current thinking is that the pyramids etc weren't built by slaves but rather by ordinary Egyptians who would give their labour (or perhaps were forced?) but would ordinarily be farmers etc.

i love it when people bring this up - who cares who physically built them, what matters is the master minds behind them...

you can liken pyramids with everything happening around you at the moment, in a 100 years will people say "indians and pakistani's built dubai" - no they wont, the best of world wide master architects built dubai.

ebonics wrote:yes, and isaac and sarah and his lived in that area, the entire area between iraq and now the gaza strip... the fact that he went with ishmael and hager to macca is as accurate as saying he took his son ishmael to the alter to sacrifice him, we believe it was isaac - a fundamental difference that brings us to where we are today.

Wow, Abraham had a big back-yard then! Iraq to Gaza.


The fact that Arab folklore has Abraham and Ismael re-building the Ka'aba etc is as strong evidence as anything else for the accounts. What other reason did pre-Islamic arabs have for attributing the Ka'aba to Abraham - it makes sense that the descendants of Abraham through Ishmael will preserve the place where Ishmael and his mother were left. (Oh, and this has nothing to do with Palestine)

ebonics wrote:the thousands of jews that got enslaved in egypt, had to come from somewhere.. they most definatly didnt originate from egypt nor were they egyptian jews. thus they dwelled in the area between iraq and gaza, where they went back and lived post moses leaving egypt.

Yes, the Israelites will have come from somewhere - but surely the point is whether they were the sole inhabitants, minority or majority in the region they came from. All Biblical accounts say that they weren't 'owners' of the region of Palestine until after the Exodus and the wars against the then occupiers (who never went away).

Also, as FD pointed out - there is no historical evidence of 'thousands of Jewish slaves' in Egypt - this was an assumption orientalists made when going to Egypt, based on the Biblical accounts. However, this has not been shown. In many ways even from Biblical accounts it reads like Egypt was the Dubai of the age, attracting workers in search of good returns.

When there was a famine, Joseph's relatives travelled to Egypt to ask for food. After this, all the relatives came willingly to Egypt.

I would be interested in hearing why you say Israelites left Egypt before Moses took them out. Is this in the Bible or is there some other reference for this? And does this mean that when the Israelites under Moses etc fought the inhabitants of Palestine, they were fighting with some Israelites as well?

Also, I think your first question is flawed - you ask
"at which point, do muslims believe that this land in its entirety belongs to muslim palestinians - completely ignoring the fact that it actually belongs (and has always belonged since the the days of abraham the father of the isrealites) to the jews?"

The international laws aren't there to favour a religion - it talks about the rights of people. Jews consider themselves a race and hence religion gets into the picture. The issue is that Palestinian people have been dispossessed and their lands occupied. I work with many displaced Palestinians who are not Muslim - they are Christian - and they have exactly the same views as the the muslim Palestinians.

It's not a question of religion, but of land and human rights. It's actually a clash between Zionism and basic human rights of Palestinians, not one of Judaism and Islam/Christianity.

Cheers,
Shafique

ebonics wrote:

shafique wrote:I also read that the current thinking is that the pyramids etc weren't built by slaves but rather by ordinary Egyptians who would give their labour (or perhaps were forced?) but would ordinarily be farmers etc.

i love it when people bring this up - who cares who physically built them, what matters is the master minds behind them...

This is in the context that supposedly it was the enslaved jews who built them. As noted, there is no physical evidence of thousands of jewish slaves in Egypt.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote: would be interested in hearing why you say Israelites left Egypt before Moses took them out.

ebonics wrote:where they went back and lived post moses leaving egypt.

never did i say such a thing.

Apologies for my misunderstanding. So we agree on the sequence of events then - I just misread your previous post.

Where the Israelites went after Moses were lands where there were already inhabitants - which is where this discussion started.

Cheers,
Shafique

we totally agree on that, but where they returned post leaving egypt, is where they came from pre going to egypt....


do we agree on that?

the point is, its as much their land, as it is palastinian land. its their problem that they cannot co-exist.


side points that come out of this, why so much hate for isrealites, when they're from the same forefather...


abraham's REAL story will never be known, the bible and the quran both are quite contradictory to each other - and are a fundamental difference between both religions. does the quran say that abraham even married hajer (if they did get married, was it before he slept with her, or after ishmael was born)? and does it say that hajer was something other than his egyptian servant?

ebonics wrote:we totally agree on that, but where they returned post leaving egypt, is where they came from pre going to egypt....

do we agree on that?

the point is, its as much their land, as it is palastinian land. its their problem that they cannot co-exist.

Sorry - you need to be more specific. Israelites who went to Egypt did not have a claim on the land when they returned, but had to fight for it as it was inhabited by others.

Jews living in Russia etc have no right to evict Palestinians who have lived on their land for centuries, I would argue - and international law agrees with this (let's keep the discussion on the occupied parts of Palestine). Palestinian Jews formed the minority in 1948 - the issue is why the minority should be given the majority of the land and be allowed to discriminate based on religion.

ebonics wrote:side points that come out of this, why so much hate for isrealites, when they're from the same forefather...

abraham's REAL story will never be known, the bible and the quran both are quite contradictory to each other - and are a fundamental difference between both religions. does the quran say that abraham even married hajer (if they did get married, was it before he slept with her, or after ishmael was born)? and does it say that hajer was something other than his egyptian servant?

Historically, Jews have got on well with Muslims. Between the wars, Palestine absorbed hundreds of thousands of Jews (the first few 'aliyas') and there have never been the organised pogroms and anti-semitism found in Europe - any maltreatment of Jews by Muslims were localised in both area and time.

The hatred of Jews has developed since the illegal occupations and oppression of Palestinians.

It's like asking 60 years ago - why do the French/Polish hate the Germans when they are of the same race!

The Quran says Hagar was Abraham's second wife - and the Bible says that God promised to make Ismael's progeny into a great nation - recognising him as legitimate heirs to Abraham. So there isn't a fundamental difference on this point between the Quran and the Bible - both say that Ishmael was a son of Abraham. I don't see whether the question of Ishmael being illegitimate has any bearing on the issue - it didn't matter to God in the Bible.

cheers,
Shafique

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination i wonder y America and GB dont let the ppl of Isreal/Palestine vote for what they want. or how about implying this UN rule in other areas of conflict like Kashmir? Why not just let the ppl decide for once and for all and end all this war. Why dont they?? is nt National Self Determination the basic rule upon which UN was built on??

shafique wrote: I don't see whether the question of Ishmael being illegitimate has any bearing on the issue

you dont see because you dont have my vision...

was he an illegetimate son of abraham according to islam, or not?

ebonics wrote:

shafique wrote: I don't see whether the question of Ishmael being illegitimate has any bearing on the issue

you dont see because you dont have my vision...

was he an illegetimate son of abraham according to islam, or not?

According to Islam (and Arabs in general), Hagar was a wife of Abraham. She was from a royal Egyptian family.

Cheers,
Shafique

righto then, was just curious